1 |
On wto, 2017-08-08 at 10:18 -0700, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > On 08/08/2017 06:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
4 |
> > > I make a lot of binaries for use on other systems, to expedite updates. |
5 |
> > > It does not make sense for some packages to ever be a binary package. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Any particular reason this decision shouldn't be left to the operator of |
8 |
> > the binhost rather than the package maintainer? it can already be |
9 |
> > controlled through env files. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Perhaps, but I could see some value in having some way to mark |
13 |
> packages that don't compile anything. This could also overlap |
14 |
> somewhat with the desire to track arch-independent packages for |
15 |
> stabilization purposes. I could see it being useful to be able to |
16 |
> obtain a list of all the binary packages in the Gentoo repo for QA |
17 |
> purposes/etc as well. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Maybe it isn't a flag that outright blocks binary package building, |
20 |
> but a way to mark such packages so that a user can apply a policy on |
21 |
> top of this. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Whether it belongs in the ebuild, or in metadata, is another matter. |
24 |
|
25 |
Does a package that builds documentation from sources count? |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Best regards, |
29 |
Michał Górny |